1

Water Productivity at Farm Level in Bhavani Basin, Tamilnadu Estimation, challenges and approaches
K.Palanisami and T.Ramesh
Water Productivity
Growing demand for water for industry and municipalities, combined with environmental
problems results in less water for agriculture in the future. One of the approaches to meet
the future water shortages will be increasing water productivity which means raising crop
yields per unit of water consumed. Over the past three decades, this has been achieved
largely through higher crop yields per hectare. In its broadest sense, it means getting
more value or benefit from each drop of water used for crops, fish, forests and livestock
while maintaining or improving ecosystems and the services they provide. Within
agriculture, this means obtaining more production or value from every drop.
Water productivity or yield per unit of water, like yield per unit of land, is partial
productivity of just one factor. Further, the definition of water productivity is scaledependent. For a farmer, it means getting more crop per drop of irrigation water. But, for
society as a whole, concerned with a basin or countrys water resource, this means getting
more value per unit of water resource used. Increasing water productivity is then the
function of several components at different levels viz., plant, field, irrigation system and
river-basin. An increase in production per unit of water diverted at one scale does not
necessarily lead to an increase in productivity of water diverted at a larger scale. The
classical irrigation efficiency decreases as the scale of the system increases (Seckler et
al., 2003). Basin water productivity takes into consideration beneficial depletion for
multiple uses of water, including not only crop production but also uses by the nonagricultural sector, including the environment. Here, the problem lies in allocating the
water among its multiple uses and users.
Water Productivity and related issues
Pure physical productivity is defined as the quantity of the product divided by the
quantity of the input- for example, yield per hectare or yield per cubic meter of water
either diverted or depleted. combined physical and economic productivity is defined in
terms of either the gross or the net present value of the crop divided by the amount of
water diverted or depleted. Economic productivity is the gross or net present value of the
product divided by the value of the water diverted or depleted, which can be defined in
terms of its opportunity cost in the highest alternative use (Jacob et al., 2003).
It needs to be determined whether proposed water-management practices or technologies
designed to increase water productivity and economic efficiency at the farm level
translate into water-productivity and economic efficiency gains at the system or basin
level.

But, with the declining crop yield growth, attention has turned to the potential offered by
improved management of water resources. The amount of reuse (or recycling) of water is
often underestimated. When reuse is taken into account, the options for further increases
in water productivity are much smaller than were expected at first.
Further, classical irrigation efficiency is defined as the crop water requirement (actual
evapotranspiration minus effective precipitation) divided by the water withdrawn or
diverted from a specific surface-water or groundwater source. Losses in this approach
include transpiration and evaporation (evapotranspiration), but also seepage, percolation
and runoff, processes in which the water is not consumed. These latter so-called losses
may be captured or recycled for use elsewhere in the basin. Thus, classical measures of
efficiency tend to underestimate the true efficiency and ignore the important role of
surface irrigation systems in recharging groundwater and providing downstream sources
of water for agriculture and other ecosystem services.
Crop water productivity is defined in either physical or monetary terms as the ratio of the
product (usually measured in kg) over the amount of water depleted (usually limited to
3
crop evapotranspiration, measured in m ). Occasionally for example, in the context of
supplemental irrigation there is a felt need to express the productivity of the applied
irrigation water. In that case, the denominator refers to irrigation water only, not to
rainfall. Obviously, vales of irrigation-water productivity cannot be compared with water
productivity with depleted water in the denominator.
This study taking into account the multiple uses of water, quantifies the productivity of
water in irrigated agriculture, along with livestock and fishery components.
2. Methodology to workout water productivity
Crop water requirements
Water requirement of a crop is the quantity of water needed for normal growth and yield
and that may be supplied by rainfall or irrigation or both. Water needed mainly to meet
the demands of Evaporation (E) and Transpiration (T) and metabolic needs of the plants
altogether known as Consumptive Use (CU)
CU = E+T+ water needed for metabolic purposes
Water used in the metabolic activities of plant is very negligible and is often than one per
cent. In such cases, ET is considered as consumptive use. Thee may be different losses
occur during transport and application of irrigation water. Water is also needed for some
special needs like land preparation, transplanting, leaching etc. therefore WR includes
CU or ET, application losses and water needed for special purposes.
WR = CU+ Application losses + water for special needs

Water requirement is therefore, a demand and the supply would consist of contributions
from any of the sources of water, the major source being the irrigation water (IR),
effective rainfall (ER) and soil profile contribution (S) including that from shallow water
tables. Numerically therefore water requirement is given as
WR = IR+ ER+ S
Irrigation water is calculated at farm level using pump discharge rate, hours of irrigation
in single time and number of irrigation to a particular crop.
IR = Pump discharge rate X hours of irrigation (one time) X No. of irrigation
Effective rainfall is generally taken as 75 % probability level. It is minimum assured
rainfall that will be available in 3 years out of 4 years. It is calculated by using a
minimum period of 25 years past rainfall. The rainfall data will be arranged in
descending order and the rainfall quantity that falls at 75% probability level considered as
effective rainfall of particular month or year.
Crop output (economic yield)
Grain yield of particular crop (kg) is considered for working water productivity in
physical term. If we want express in economic term, the income from grain yield and the
additional income from byproducts also taken in to account.
Crop water productivity
The crop water productivity can be worked out by dividing the grain yield by total water
used. The grain yield is converted to economic value based on the market rate and used
for calculation.
3

Crop water productivity = Grain yield (Kg)/ total water used (m )

3
= Gross income (Rs.)/ total water used (m )
Livestock water requirement (LWR)
The total water used for rearing of animal includes drinking water (DW), water used for
washing animals and cattle shed and water consumed for fodder/ forage production.
3

LWR (m ) = DW + WP +FP
DW Drinking Water
WP Washing Purpose
FP- Fodder Production

Livestock output
Total milk yield (Lts) per animal per lactation period can be calculated.
Livestock water productivity (LWR)
3

Livestock water productivity = Milk yield (lts)/ total water used (m )

3
= Gross return (Rs.)/ total water used (m )
Fishery water requirement (FWR)
Quantity of water maintained in the fish pond as dead storage is calculated using the size
of the fish pond and height of water column. The quantity of water added to the fish pond
at particular interval to maintain the dead storage can be accounted as evaporation loss
from the fish pond. Water used for fish feeds is considerable as negligible amount.
FWR (M3) = Dead storage + Evaporation loss
Fishery output
Total fish yield in a unit time and unit area is calculated. The sediments obtained from
fish pond may be accounted as nutrient value basis in economical terms.
Fishery water productivity
3
= Total fish yield (kg)/ total water used (m )
Total farm level water productivity
3
=Total income from whole system (Rs.)/ total water used (m )
3. Preliminary Results
Farm level water productivity across different irrigation systems
Canal system
Comparing the different locations in Lower Bhavani project, Arachalur (Head region)
recorded maximum yield and profit per unit quantity of water. However, the second
season (Sept - Dec), recorded less grain yield compared to previous season, due to rat
problem and occurrence of heavy rain during the anthesis. Muthur (Tail end area)
recorded low yield and low productivity per unit quantity of water due to late release and
early closing of water (Table 1). The early closing of water coincided with peak water
requirement of the crop (Palanisami, et.al 1997).

Table 1. Productivity per unit quantity of water under canal system

Lower Bhavani Project
Particulars
Head region
Tail region
1. Crop
Paddy
Paddy
2. Soil type
Red nonRed noncalcareous
calcareous
3. Season
Sep-Dec
Sep-Dec
4. Varieties
IR 20
IR 20
5. Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha)
13641
13116
6. Grain yield (kg/ha)
4630
4265
7. Straw yield (t/ha)
6.0
5.3
8. Gross return (Rs/ha)
19000
17406
9. Net return (Rs/ha)
5359
4290
3
10.Effective rainfall (m )
2690
3390
3
11.Irrigation water applied (m )
13720
12100
3
12.Total water consumed(m )
16410
15490
3
13.Productivity/ m
3
1.Product (kg/ m )
0.282
0.275
3
2.Gross return (Rs/ m )
1.16
1.12
3
3. Net return (Rs/ m )
0.33
0.28
14. Water requirement (lit/kg)
3544
3632
Tank system
In tank irrigation systems, system tanks recorded maximum yield and productivity per
unit of water than non- system tanks (Table 2). Non- system tanks which depend upon
fully rainfall run-off have comparatively lesser storage resulting in low productivity per
unit of water. In general, productivity under the tank systems is relatively lower than
under the canal system.
Table 2. Productivity per unit quantity of water under tank system
Particulars
System
Non system
1. Crop
2. Soil type
3. Season
4. Varieties
5. Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha)
6. Grain yield (kg/ha)
7. Straw yield (t/ha)
8. Gross return (Rs/ha)
9. Net return (Rs/ha)
3
10.Effective rainfall (m )
3
11.Irrigation water applied (m )

Paddy
Red soil
Sep-Jan
IR 20
10542
3245
4.1
13227
2685
2840
10890

Paddy
Red soil
Oct-Feb
IR 20
10213
2984
3.7
12074
1861
2840
880

12.Well water applied (m ) 3

13.Total water consumed(m
)
3
14.Productivity/ m
3
1.Product (kg/ m )
3
2.Gross return (Rs/ m )
3)
3. Net return (Rs/ m
15. Water requirement (lit/kg)

1120
14850

1410
13050

0.22
0.89
0.18
4576

0.23
0.92
0.14
4373

Well Irrigation
Well irrigation has recorded the maximum output per unit quantity of water due to
effective utilization of water. However, compared to other systems total quantity of
water consumed by crop is low due to limited but controlled water supply by the farmers.
Compared to rice, sugarcane crop has recorded maximum productivity and profit per unit
of water. It could be concluded that rice yielded comparatively low returns per unit
quantity of water both in terms of product and profit. Compared to rice, sugarcane crop
followed by groundnut recorded maximum productivity and profit per unit of water
(Table 3).
Table 3. Productivity per unit quantity of water under well irrigation
Particulars
Soil type
Season
Varieties
Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha)
Yield (kg/ha)
Gross return (Rs/ha)
Net return (Rs/ha)
3
Effective rainfall (m )
3
Irrigation water applied (m )
3
Total water consumed (m )
3
Product (kg/ m )
3
Gross return(Rs/ m )
3
Net return (Rs/ m ))
Water requirement (lit/kg)

Paddy

Sugar cane

Cotton

Ground nut

Red soil
Aug-Dec
IR 20
11260
4240
16670
5410
2710
9990
12700
0.33
1.31
0.43
2995

Red soil
Jun-May
COC671
40240
146450
76650
36410
6020
22100
28120
5.21
2.73
1.29
192.0

Red soil
Aug-Jan
MCU5
8560
1015
15225
6665
3270
5430
8700
0.12
1.75
0.77
8571

Red soil
Jul-Oct
TMV1
7200
3566
15375
8175
2720
4010
6730
0.53
2.28
1.21
1887

Among the systems, well irrigation has performed better than other systems in terms of
productivity and profit followed by canal and tank systems (Table 4).

Table 4 . Quantity of water used, Productivity and Profit per unit quantity of water in
different systems for Paddy
Particulars
Productivity Gross return Net return
Water used
3
3
3
(kg/ m )
(Rs/ m )
(Rs/ m )
(l/kg)
I) Canal system:
Head
3544
0.282
1.16
0.33
Tail
3632
0.275
1.12
0.28
II) Tank system:
1) System tank
2) Non system tank

4576
4373

0.22
0.23

0.89
0.92

0.18
0.14

III) Well system:

2995

0.33

1.31

0.43

Input Use at farm level

The input use details are important to compare the productivity of water, as the influence
of inputs such as fertilizer, labour and seed should be avoided while calculating the
productivity of water. Average quantities of inputs used by farmers in different systems
are given in Table 5. It is observed that the variability in input use is very less in all the
locations and hence it is assumed that influence of these inputs on crop production is
considered uniform across each system.
Table 5. Average Input use in different irrigation systems
Particulars

N (kg/ha)

P (kg/ha)

K (kg/ha)

Seeds
(kg/ha)

Labour
(days/ha)

Canal system(Paddy)
Head
Tail

106
104

48
34

45
43

76
80

208
201

Tank system (Paddy)

System
Non system

102
75

33
30

37
32

79
75

192
160

Well system:
Paddy

110

40

42

79

205

Sugarcane

201

72

85

497

90

65

35

11020
(setts)
7

Cotton

252

Multi-uses of water in agriculture

Comparing the different combination of farm enterprises, crop + fishery system gives
more profit per unit of water followed by crop + dairy combination. The water
productivity has increased considerably where allied enterprises involved along with
crops. Among the allied enterprises, dairy component requires minimum water which in

turn produced maximum water productivity per unit of water (Table 6.). Among the
irrigation methods, drip irrigation has recorded the maximum water productivity
compared to surface irrigation.
Water productivity is expressed both in terms of product or profit per unit of
evapotranspiration, or irrigation water or total water used (IW+P). Maximum water
productivity was observed under flower crop such as rose followed by grapes and banana.
In general, fruit crops produced higher water productivity that grain crops (Table 7).
In wetland ecosystem, the water productivity can be improved by introducing fishery.
With the same quantity of water used in rice cultivation, it is possible to increase the
water productivity by several times if it is used for fish production (Table 8).
Table 8. Comparison of water productivity of rice and fish at farm level
Particulars
Rice
Fish

Water productivity
3
3
(kg / m )
(Rs. / m )
0.46
2.75
3.08
77.13

Factors influencing the productivity of crops

Production function analysis
Crop yields are not only depending upon the irrigation water applied but also on the level
of other factors such as labour, fertilizers, capital(money) available with the farmers to
spend on other inputs, and soil types. Production function analysis was carried out to
exactly study the factors influencing the yield of paddy in canal, tank and well irrigation
systems taking into account the farmer sample in and around the study locations. CobbDouglas type production function was fitted as many farm level studies had successfully
applied this functional form. Paddy yield in quintal/ha was hypothesized to be influenced
by the following variables: labour used in mandays/ha.; irrigation water applied in ha.cm;
fertilizer used in kgs of N/ha.; total cost of cultivation Rs/ha. which is used as a proxy for
capital available with the farmers; and soil type of the sample farm, where different
scores were given for different soil types-Alluvial = 5; Red soil = 4; Black cotton soil= 2.
Results of the functional analyses had indicated that in all the irrigation systems, mostly
irrigation water was the influencing variable followed by labour and fertilizer (Table 9).
Marginal productivity of the inputs had indicated that additional water input in canal
system could yield 12 kg of paddy per unit of water applied (Table 10). In the case of
tank irrigation systems marginal productivity of water was comparatively high under
non-system tanks indicating the need to augment additional irrigation supplies as tanks
are prone for water scarcities. Since use of fertilizers depends upon the water supplies,
marginal productivity of fertilizer use is also high in the non- system tanks.

Table 9. Results of the regression analysis of factors influencing paddy yield in different
systems
Inputs
Canal
S.Tanks N.Tanks
Wells
Output elasticity
Labour
0.23*
0.48*
0.31
0.14
Water
0.45*
0.24*
0.42*
0.37*
Fertilizer
0.11*
0.27
0.38
0.15
Cost
0.36
0.16
0.32
0.35*
Soil
0.56
0.08
0.21
0.33
Constant
33.54
27.15
28.91
34.21
0.34
0.37
0.35
0.51
R2
N
24
45
63
29
Note: S.Tanks=system tanks; N.Tanks=non-system tanks.; N=Number of observations
* Significant at 5 per cent level
Table 10. Marginal productivity of inputs in paddy cultivation in different systems,
(kg/unit of input)
Inputs
Canal
S.Tanks N.Tanks
Wells
Labour
5.46
9.0
Water
13.29
6.04
10.04
10.83
Fertilizer
4.98
3.82
Cost
0.21
Soil
Note: marginal productivities were worked out for those variables whose coefficients
were significant in the regression.
4. The challenges
The scale and boundary of the area over which water productivity is calculated greatly
affect its value. This is because of outflow losses by S, P and runoff at a specific
location (or field) can be reused at another location within the area under consideration.
Data on water productivity across scales are useful parameters to assess whether water
outflows upstream are effectively reused downstream. The limited data suggest that water
productivities at scale levels vary widely. The paucity of data on water productivity at
scale levels higher than the field level is the major constraint (Jacob et. al., 2003). In this
context, increasing crop water productivity is a challenge at various levels which is
briefly outlined below:
The first challenge is to continue to enhance the marketable yield of crops without
increasing transpiration. The second challenge is at field, farm and system levels to
reduce as much as possible all outflows that do not contribute to crop production. The
third challenge is to increase the economic productivity of all sources of water, especially
rainwater but also waste-water of various qualities and saline (ground) water.
Interdisciplinary team work is warranted.

10
5. Future approaches
At plant level identification of traits and genes for drought and salt tolerance be further
intensified using conventional and molecular breeding techniques. This will result in
increase in production without concomitant increase in ET through changes in harvest
index.
At field level, introduction of supplemental irrigation and drip and sprinkler will enhance
the crop productivity. Institutional and Governmental policies will also promote the
spread of these technologies which could result in higher productivity. Reducing
unproductive water outflows through the following ways will also be helpful viz.,
minimising idle periods during land preparation, soil management to increase resistance
to water flow and water management to reduce hydrostatic pressure.
At basin level, integrated water and land management will be much helpful in enhancing
land and water productivity.
References
Jacob,W.K, R.Barker and D.Molden. 2003. Improving Water Productivity in
Agriculture: Editors Overview in Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and
Opportunities for Improvement. (Eds) Kijne.J.W., R.Barker and D.Molden. CABI
Publishing. UK.
Palanisami, K. A.Rajagopal and A. Mohamed Ali. 1997. Productivity per unit of water
under various land uses mixes in Tamilnadu. Water Technology Centre, Tamilnadu
Agricultural University, Coimbatore.
Seckler, David. D.Molden and R.Sakthivadivel. 2003. The Concept of Efficiency in
Water Resources Management and Policy in Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits
and Opportunities for Improvement. (Eds) Kijne.J.W., R.Barker and D.Molden. CABI
Publishing. UK.

11

Table 6 . Water productivity of different agriculture enterprises at field level

Unit

Water (m )

Yield (kg)

Income (Rs.)

WP(IP)
3
(kg/ m )

WP(IP)
3
(Rs./ m )

1.5 acres

8121.6

10500

126000

1.29

15.51

0.5 acre
0.25 acre
2.25

2524.5
1080
12590.1

5000
60000
500
4000
194000
306000
Rose- surface irrigated
1 acre
6220.0
76500
Nos.
340000
Rose- drip irrigated
1 acre
2264.4
85000
Nos.
Crops + Dairy
Maize
0.5 acre
777.6
800
4800
3300
Dairy
1 No.
24.82
26400
lit/lactation
Total farm
2.5 acres
9287.62
192700
Grape-drip
1 acre
921.6
2500
25000
Crops +
Banana -drip
1 acre
6336
14400
172800
Fishery
Fishery
1 acre
8644.8
26670
666750
Total farm
3 acres
15902.4
842050
WP(IP) Water Productivity for total water used (Irrigation water + Precipitation)

1.98
0.46
-

23.76
3.70
16.54

12.30

37.50

1.02

6.17

132.96 lits

1063.65

2.71
2.27
77.13
-

20.74
27.13
27.27
77.13
53.0

Farm type

Crops alone

Enterprises
Banana-surface
irrigated
Banana-drip irrigated
Leaf vegetable
Total farm

Table 7 . Water Productivity (Rs. per m of water) in respect to Evapo-transpiration (WPET), irrigation (WPI) and total
water productivity (WPIP) for different crops at farmers' situation
Total
Total
Total water
Unit
Income
S.No Crop
WP (ET)
WP (I)
WP(IP)
3
3
3
ET
(m
)
IW
(m
)
(IW+P)
(m
)
(acres)
(Rs.)
1.
Banana -Surface
1.5
9960
7299.6
8121.6
126000
12.65
17.26
15.51
Banana -Drip
0.5
3320
1962.5
2524.5
60000
18.07
30.57
23.76
2.
Rose -Surface
1.0
3805.9
5096.8
6220.0
76500
20.10
15.01
12.30
Rose -Drip
1.0
3805.9
1140.4
2264.4
85000
22.33
74.53
37.5
3.
Maize- Surface
0.5
500
499.6
777.6
4800
9.60
9.60
6.17
Leaf vegetable 4.
0.25
106.8
941
1080
4000
36.83
4.25
3.70
Surface
5.
Grape-Drip
1.0
1421.4
357.6
921.6
25000
17.59
69.9
27.13